I vote a resounding "No!"
Otherwise people can just disable Gm
by not serving a page if you are using Gm.
Whether anyone would do it, or not, who knows.
But, if they could, I'm sure some would.
Especially some of the anti-Gm ma'roons.
Just to irritate people, if nothing else.
What if Google decided to not serve any pages
to people who are using Gm.
Or the NYTimes site? Or Blogger.com?
Or any site that someone wants to use Gm on?
It already irritates me that, for example,
the ImageToolbar extension allows sites to
disable it if they have a meta tag in the header.
So I go in and disable that functionality
programatically in the ImageToolbar code.
Aaron Boodman wrote:
> I was wondering: what would it do to the balance of power if
> Greasemonkey sent headers with each browser request announcing itself
> and each of the enabled scripts?
>> Publishers would not be able to disable Greasemonkey AND serve
> content. They'd only be able to decide to serve content and allow
> Greasemonkey, or to not serve content at all.
>> What do you guys think?